[billw55]

eh, sometimes it seems like the proprieties of this game are harder to learn than the game itself.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2011-November-23, 07:36, said:

eh, sometimes it seems like the proprieties of this game are harder to learn than the game itself.

Luckily, 99% of the time these tricky issues don't arise.

[Vampyr]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-22, 02:21, said:

In practice I agree with the suggestion to say that "partner is showing x number of aces," and that is what I do when this happens. I mean, that is in fact what partner is trying to show, it's not like the opponents are receiving misinformation that might cause them to fail to double or not double an artificial bid. Telling partner exactly what misunderstanding you are having does not feel appropriate. Perhaps I am not following the letter of the law, and perhaps it is wrong of me to try to do anything other than that, but I do feel as though I'm following the mysterious "spirit of the law."

There have been a lot of opinions expressed in this thread, but the official WBFLC position is that the above is illegal. When the latest edition of the Laws was drafted, they knew that there were some people who felt that the Laws said otherwise, but they refused to make the Law explicit, perhaps feeling that they would not give these people the satisfaction. Pretty babyish, I know. So the relevant "Law" is instead found here:

http://www.worldbrid...sCommentary.pdf

under the commentary for Law 20. Attempting to follow the "spirit" of the law when the "letter" is quite specific is a dangerous path to begin upon. But it is quite understandable for players not to know what to do when the "letter" is in such an obscure place.

[Cascade]

Firstly although never having played this method it seems to me that 4d could be productively used just to attempt to right side 4h especially if 4c is usually not slammish.

On the legal issues clearly you are obliged to give a correct explanation of your agreement. I feel a player deliberately giving an incorrect answer to avoid ui deserves to be penalized.

The player who had ui and bid 7h was clearly taking advantage of the ui if 4s was a logical alternative as 4s is likely to be passed out. This action definitely needs to be penalized.

[Mbodell]

Yeah, when I've played 2 under transfers bidding the middle suggests that I have no "lead values" and want partner to declare. It is neutral about hand and fit quality. But when I bid the 4 level transfers, it is either too play 4M only, or driving to slam, so partner already knows what they are going to do. If they had an invite to slam they would have bid lower/slower.

[mycroft]

billw55, on 2011-November-22, 16:01, said:

Exactly! If partner makes a call for which we have no definite agreement, what may follow:

(my emphasis)
There are explicit (or definite) agreements, and there are implicit agreements (and there are meta-agreements, and relevant agreements). The Law requires you to inform the opponents about *all* of them, as best you can. Therefore:

Quote

1. I say "well I am taking it as thus and such". Partner has UI as to my interpretation of his bid - and may be constrained from taking a normal action if there is a logical alternative. This hardly seems a fair result of the opponents question; they could even do this on purpose. Never mind that I am speculating and may be giving MI as well.

"I'm taking it as" is incorrect - and I refuse to answer the question "what are you taking it as?" If you have no agreement, you have to guess. You don't have to tell them how you're going to guess - but you do need to tell them the information about your system that you will be using to guess.

For example: "we have no agreement about this auction. If second hand had passed, it would have meant <X>; if second hand had doubled, it would have meant <Y>; but we didn't agree about this overcall."
Another example: "We have no agreed defence to your convention, but we play 'undiscussed doubles of artificial bids are that suit' and 'doubles of shortness-showing bids are for the next suit down'."

Yes, partner has UI. Yes, he may be constrained. That's your/his fault for not knowing your system, and it happens.

Quote

2. I say "no agreement, just bridge". Now nobody has any UI or MI. But ops may be underinformed - or are they? After all "no agreement" is accurate.

That smells of the farm. It's not "just bridge" - almost always. You have information they don't about what other calls he may have taken, some of which Mr. and Mrs. Beazley won't automatically get (and they have agreements you wouldn't think about, either!) The opponents *are* underinformed, and they won't be able to guess as well as you can. As such, "no agreement" is accurate only in the positive; it is highly inaccurate in the negative.

2) applies less to pickup pairs and indys, of course (and I have said, at least once, "you heard our entire system discussion" when I'm playing fill-in and my (new) partner shows up 10 minutes after game time). But if I'm playing with "random Calgary A player", I have a *lot* of agreements even if we just say "2/1, upside-down, have fun partner"; if I'm playing against random Calgary C pair, (with whom, if I'm playing and we just say "2/1, standard, have fun partner", there are a whole *different* set of agreements), if one of these comes up, it's imperative for me to explain, say, 1♦-3♣ - because I'm *sure* I know what it means, even if we didn't explicitly agree "limit raise".

[billw55]

mycroft, on 2011-November-25, 11:01, said:

Yes, partner has UI. Yes, he may be constrained. That's your/his fault for not knowing your system, and it happens.

I understand this in principle. But in reality, no pair anywhere has a system that covers every single possible situation. I'd bet the farm that even world class pairs run into undiscussed auctions fairly frequently.

I am tempted to keep a half-size clipboard handy so I can jot down written explanations below table level. This way ops can see and partner can't .. I wonder if anyone would object.